This news release describes a head-to-head trial of two acne medications. The trial design sounded impressive; it was randomized, double-blind and placebo controlled. But that intro was the best the release had to offer readers. There were no details from the study to back up subsequent claims. This news release has a lot of what we don’t want to see in a news release — fear mongering, hype, unjustifiable language, and lack of evidence.
Acne is the most common skin disorder in the US affecting between 40-50 million persons of all ages and races. This chronic inflammatory disease, when untreated, can lead to physical scars, skin hyperpigmentation, and psychological problems. It primarily affects adolescents and teens. There are multiple OTC and mail-order (direct to consumer) formulations (including antimicrobial agents and cleansers) and it is a huge business (>1billion dollars annually). In an era where appointments with pediatricians, family physicians and dermatologists are not so easy to come by, buying OTC products is a great option if they work.
There is no mention of cost in the release, not even a mention of where this new product will be on the spectrum of OTC products via-a-vis price. For a product whose manufacturer boasts in the release that it will come out of the gate to become a global competitor, one would expect they’d have a price point to offer.
We’re told that “After 24 hours treatment, the percentage of subjects with reduced acne count was 64% greater for those using HSRx 2121 than for subjects using the competing product.” Various other relative comparisons are provided that are all about as clear as mud since they don’t contain any absolute numbers. Example: “the percentage of subjects with unsightly acne-associated redness was reduced nearly three times as much…” Three times as much as what?
Harms are not mentioned. Most OTC acne medications come with a warning to start slowly with small amounts until you know how your skin will react. Common side effects include dryness, redness, peeling, itching, burning, and rashes.
Nice try describing this as a ‘head-to-head’ comparison and a “randomized controlled trial.” Alas, there is more we don’t know (and need to know!) than what is revealed here.
There is a fair amount of fear mongering here. The release calls acne “a universal plague”, “unsightly” and even cites a NASA “warning” about acne bacteria living on the International Space Station! (The release links, by the way, to a story in the UK Daily Mirror — not exactly a credible news source.) For the record, NASA itself never produced a “warning” as stated in the release. Its scientists merely described all kinds of organisms found on the ISS which, not surprisingly, include bacteria that live on human bodies (http://microbiomejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40168-015-0116-3).
The release also refers to acne as “among the 10 most prevalent human infectious diseases” as if it were some deadly virus or bacteria. Though bacteria does play a role in acne, it is, in fact, better known as an inflammatory condition and bacteria is but one pathophysiological mechanism responsible for it.
We’ll give the benefit of the doubt here. The release states that the trial was conducted by their pharma company HSRx Group and speaks openly about marketing. In fact, most of the release talks about what a great business opportunity it is and the potential for profit (vs. how it might impact the millions of sufferers): “The HSRx product demonstrated superior treatment performance throughout the entire clinical study.”That makes for a powerful marketing advantage,” Sullivan said.” And: “Our acne treatment product has enormous commercial potential, evidenced by the significant licensee interest it has attracted. As with each of our next generation OTC drug products, we intend to license HSRx 2121 to a leading marketing entity that has the resources and expertise to maximize sales, here and abroad,” Parise said.”
If you go to the website of the research organization you will find their acne study summaries (which interestingly DO mention the types of acne formulations used). Makes one wonder even more why the news release neglected to mention this.
This was the release’s greatest omission. The release is about a head-to-head trial but does not name one of the two products being tested.
In the FDA-approved OTC acne product realm there are many brand names but only four basic medications that are sold alone or in combination. They are benzoyl peroxide, salicylic acid, alpha hydroxy acids and sulfur.
There are many OTC and many prescription medications most of which use the basic ingredients in multiple different ways and combinations. There are also several non-medication types of interventions such as laser therapy, acupuncture, etc, used frequently for acne.
The release doesn’t state if the product is available now or when it might become available.
We don’t know if this is a novel compound or not since we don’t know what’s in it. We get no useful information here about what’s in the formulation and why is it new (type of ingredient, new dose, novel delivery model? new combo of existing ingredients?).
It is inappropriate and unjustifiable to include acne “among the 10 most prevalent human infectious diseases” when threats like HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, influenza, Ebola are deadly, unlike acne, and in a whole other class of disease.
The strong claims made without providing data on the comparison product are completely unjustified.
“The HSRx product demonstrated superior treatment performance throughout the entire clinical study.”
We also get hyped statements about NASA acne warnings, and we’re troubled by the highlighted outcome being the profit potential and NOT patient-oriented outcomes (and reduction in suffering).
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
A lot of interesting workshops are happening now at the #NBCCSummit! @garyschwitzer, the publisher of @HealthNewsRevu, is discussing new cancer research news. #BeBold
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like